Vince Torley's article is worth reading because it illustrates some of the confusions in the minds of IDiots as they struggle to catch up with 21st century biology [see Why Keith Blanchard really doesn’t understand evolution]. However, that's not the point I want to make today. Instead, I want to quote a paragraph from near the end of Vincent Torley's article ....

I could go on, but I’d like to conclude this article with a final observation: Keith Blanchard doesn’t have a science degree. His LinkedIn profile lists him as having a two year tech degree in Electronic Technology, which he obtained in 1975. Let us freely grant that the man’s skill set looks quite impressive. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a man without a science degree has no place writing an article on evolution in a popular online magazine like The Week. It’s simply presumptuous.

I wonder if there are any prominent Intelligent Design Creationists who don't have real science degrees?

Georgi MarinovSunday, August 10, 2014 12:51:00 PMThis has been commented on many times in the past, including, I think by you. But it is worth repeating - if someone has more than degree of the same rank, especially PhDs, most of the time something is really fishy...

Real scientists do research, to which jumping through all the procedural hoops one has to overcome to get one more PhD is only a hindrance. Most of the top PhD programs in the sciences do not admit people who already have a PhD, and for a very good reason.

But I guess having more than one PhD or some other degree looks good in the eyes of people outside of science who don't understand how things really work, Which is why there is such an unusual concentration of such people among creationists...

Going after Blanchard's bad science and lack of knowledge is fine, but this is bullshit: "Nevertheless, the fact remains that a man without a science degree has no place writing an article on evolution in a popular online magazine like The Week. It’s simply presumptuous."

As one example, Torley is saying that Carl Zimmer has no place writing about science in popular publications. That it's presumptuous that he do so. And that's nonsense.

The IDiots switch back and forth between two different, opposing arguments, depending on their opponent at the moment. Each of these arguments cancels out the other.

1. If you act as if science degrees don't matter, you're "presumptuous" as Torley says here. If you don't have a science degree, you can't challenge the ID authorities who do have a degree... even when it's not in science.

2. If you act as if science degrees do matter, you're "authoritarian" and/or "elitist." So you'd better not point out that anti-evolutionists often have no science degrees. Journalist Denyse O'Leary (no science degree) uses the phrase "New Authoritarian" to describe anyone with a real science degree who points out how IDers fake the evidence. As ID dentist and Texas school board member/Christian apologist Don McLeroy (no science degree) put it, "Someone's got to stand up to the experts."

In this insufferable passage, Joshua Youngkin, the Discovery Institute's ten thousandth lawyer (no science degree) attacks pro-evolution activist Zack Kopplin-- because Kopplin said to a right-wing anti-science activist on television, "You're not a scientist," which he wasn't. So Youngkin paints Kopplin (and by extension, all evolutionists/scientists) not just as elitists, but as "tyrants" and fascists who will line up non-scientists against the wall to execute them:

Joshua Youngkin: …the ominous idea behind Zack’s words: in the world to come, only scientists and other cognoscenti will get to ask science-and-policy questions. The overly curious will be the first to find their backs against the wall...

No Youngkin, we won't line you up against the wall for shooting. Much worse: we'll link to the lies you wrote, compare them to scientific facts, and prove that you lied to your church audiences. Burns don't it.

Peel that onion back further… for whatever reason, some people don’t take kindly to even good faith questioning. Who? Well, tyrants mostly...

…not all tyrants enrich uranium for “peaceful” purposes. Some work at the DMV. In a free country nothing defeats a tyrannical temperament or a tyrannical repeal campaign like self-disclosure. ["You're Not a Scientist." Let's Meme it!.Joshua Youngkin. ENV April 12, 2013]

It is my understanding that Darwin learned most of the science he was exposed to at university at the Un. of Edinburgh, from Prof. Robert Grant who introduced him to a treatise by Lamarck and some writings by his paternal grandfather Erasmus Darwin.

Michael Faraday didn't have a real science degree either but managed to make important contributions to the theory of electromagnetism. In fact, along with Darwin and Maxwell, Faraday was one of the most important scientists of the 19th century.

A behavior qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic “write” to a screen) to control, [2] memory addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements, [3] confidence (central hedonic, homeostasis) system that increments (stored in memory) confidence value of a successful motor action else decrements the confidence value, [4] guess new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases (and if not prerandomized motor data then when first addressed). For flagella powered cells reversing motor direction can produce a tumble to a new heading direction, guess where to go.

The IBM Watson system that won at Jeopardy qualifies as intelligent. Word combinations were guessed then tested against memory for confidence in each being a hypothesis that is true, and whether confident enough in best answer to “push buzzer”. The Watson platform had a speaker (for vocal muscles) and muscles guiding a pen was simulated by an electric powered writing device.

Behavior of matter is produced by electromagnetic force created atomic bonds and intermolecular interactions (covalent, polar covalent, van der Waals polar force, ionic, metallic, hydrogen) and follows the laws of physics. This behavior can only respond to its environment one way, such as bonding with another molecule or not. To computer model the behavior of matter only two of the four requirements for intelligence are required.

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/

Now show the audience what you have for scientific evidence against what is stated in the theory and:

Science degrees on their own do not matter much (except when one has too many of them - as a rule that's a red flag), and I think every reasonable person who has some degree of familiarity with the inner workings of science will agree with that.

In fact, one can very well argue that these days advanced science degrees harm one's intellectual development more often that they enhance it. Long gone are the days when earning a PhD was an act of real intellectual accomplishment that involved a lot of breadth as well as depth in one topic. Nowadays grad students are cheap labor and all the incentives are stacked in the direction of getting them pipetting at the bench as soon as possible and for as long as possible so that the wheels of the machine can spin faster. So what happens by default is that a thesis is produced on a very narrow topic without much having been learned beyond that, while a lot of what has been taught in undergraduate courses is naturally forgotten as it is not revisited, with the end result being a person who as a whole knows less about science than when he/she entered the PhD program. It's not even certain that the student will be taught how to properly do science - it is not clear how that would happen in the absence of numerous courses with rigorous emphasis on the epistemological aspects of the process and in labs with 40 people in them and half an hour meeting with the advisor every 2 weeks or even less frequently. Of course, I am painting a very dark picture, and this need not happen, and in many cases, it doesn't, but a lot of effort is required from both the advisor and the student to avoid that outcome.

So a science degree on its own (as creationists themselves demonstrate very nicely) is no guarantee of scientific competence. Also, sometimes it is actually very good to hear the views of outsiders on certain topics as they may see things from a perspective that is not available to people in the field, or, in other cases, they may have the intellectual freedom to say things that people in the field cannot openly say without jeopardizing their careers.

However, when I say this can be useful, I have in mind only the cases when the ideas of the outsiders do not blatantly contradict the well-established facts in the field, and when they are the product of real thought and reflection about the topic, not of profound misunderstandings, or, in the worst case, and what we're dealing with here, religious and political agendas.

In the end, when we say that such and such creationist is no scientist, we don't do so based on what degrees he has or does not have, we do so based on the copious amounts of ignorance about the subject (and often outright stupidity too) and blatant disregard for the scientific method and the rules of proper reasoning that their writings contain.

Diogenes: "Gary doesn't realize it, but he just wrote a parody of Torley's logic... intentionally or not."

In the case of the Theory of Intelligent Design the phrase "intelligent cause" had non-religious use (brick houses with glass windows are caused by human intelligence) and it ridiculous for anyone to get overly religious about it. With all said and done it's what Alfred Wallace (who had no credentials at all, see 1:02:53 into first video) was talking about, needing to be there to account for the complexity of biological designs. The Discovery Institute fellows and others are essentially onto theory he predicted possible.

I read Alfred's last and most famous book. He actually did go into great detail in regards to intelligence being required. This is not a simple case where everything that goes with the Theory of Intelligent Design can be (for religious reasons) thrown out of science and goes away, by taking it as religiously as you can.

The only scientific thing to do is what Alfred Wallace would have done, use discoveries that have since been made to further develop the theory he was talking about being needed, which does in fact have a scientific basis, that I know about from having experimented with cognitive models which apply to genetics as well.

Both theories are deeply rooted into other sciences/theories that go with it where it's all ripped out and thrown away. In one case Charles goes, in the other what Alfred was talking about goes (because of what someone else said about it or their credentials).

Another dichotomy between real scientists and creationists is the frequency of use of the argument from authority.

The former will mostly talk about facts and data and quote famous scientists only when it's necessary to pay homage the greats of the past or to illustrate the historical development of ideas. It tends to be the reverse with creationists - a lot of he said/she said, and not just that, it is mostly quotes from people who lived so long ago that what they had to say is completely irrelevant to the discussion about evolution in the 21st century.

Who the hell cares what Wallace had to say other than historians of science? The same goes for Darwin, BTW - the theory of evolution in the 21st century is so far advanced and removed from what the understanding of the process was in Darwin's time that it is totally meaningless to discuss Darwin's thought for any other reason than to understand the historical context (note the difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution). Yet creationists will go back to them all the time, and not just that, professional scholars in the field of science and religion will do that too - articles are constantly written about different aspects of Darwin's writings and their relationship to the evolution "controversy" of modern times and they will often go back to original texts and analyze them, etc., as if the 21st century theory of evolution is built on them. But neither Darwin not Wallace actually understood evolution because there was so much they did not know, even if Darwin was somewhat less wrong.

Georgi: "- the theory of evolution in the 21st century is so far advanced and removed from what the understanding of the process was in Darwin's time that it is totally meaningless to discuss Darwin's thought for any other reason than to understand the historical context (note the difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution). "

I agree. In the case of Alfred Wallace what his later theory was describing that pertains to intelligence is making more scientific sense all the time, but all he could say about it at the time made it to some seem like he joined a religious cult or was going senile. I could tell from what he said he was on the right track, but it is such a fuzzy idea that it's not useful for writing a theory from. To better describe it he needed to know modern cognitive and genetics theory that was not around at the time.

Even though I can't change where the evidence leads the theory still ended up explaining that we are a trinity (three closely related things) from the behavior of matter, which somehow causes the combined intelligence (us) to become conscious but none know how yet. Where I look in biology for the cause of religious belief and marriage ceremony type ritual I get this clue to what "god" is but since it's scientific theory I do not get religious about it:

This theory has explained why we are a product of intelligent design that contains a trinity of emergent levels of biological intelligence, as follows:

(1) Molecular Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular intelligence, whereby genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is the primary source of our instinctual behavior, and molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).

(3) Multicellular Intelligence: Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and multicellular level social differentiation (i.e. occupation).

The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...

Gary, I challenge you to back up your accusation that I employed "argument from ignorance." Quote anything I've written, define argument from ignorance, and prove I employed it.

You have no theory, Gary. You don't even know what "theory" means. You have long strings of non sequiturs which employ jargon. That is not a theory, it's bullshit.

You have no theory. Theories make predictions about observable quantities independent of their input. You have definitions of cultic jargon words which, like definitions in general, do not entail testable predictions. Humpty Dumpty can redefine words too; that's not a theory.

As for your marriage bullshit, Chinese people don't seek the approval of invisible spooks when they get married. Nor did I.

Please return the goalposts to scientifically explaining how "intelligent cause" works as per the premise of said theory that states “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part".

The female salmon builds multiple nests and "defends" none of them. Multiple males compete to fertilize the eggs in each nest, so there one can have one male defending a nest (called a redd) against other males. No "[un]til death do they part," though as far as male-female pairs are concerned.

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

Does a Thermos need to know whether the substance inside is hot or cold, or is there an "undirected process" perfectly adequate to explain that hot substances stay hot and cold substances stay cold?

Folks who are unaware of the scientific principle behind the operation of a Thermos might well think there would have to be an intelligence behind the fact that it apparently "distinguishes" between hot and cold contents. In the same way, folks who are unaware of the scientific principles behind evolution may feel no "mere" natural process could produce such varied results. But just like the Thermos, the apparent complexity is in fact explained by relatively simple natural principles in the case of evolution.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause whereby in biology (emergent from behavior of matter) a collective of intelligent entities at the molecular level combine to cause emergence of intelligence at the cellular level, which combine to cause the emergence of intelligence at the multicellular level, to create us who are thereby a trinity of self-similar intelligence levels at different size scales each systematically and behaviorally in their/our own image, likeness.

There is reciprocal cause in both forward and reverse directions, specifically (for any behavior) behavioral cause or (for intelligent behavior) intelligent cause. This behavioral pathway causes all of our complex intelligence related behaviors to connect back to the behavior of matter, which does not need to be intelligent to be source of consciousness. For sake of theory consciousness is considered to be in addition to intelligence, but not required for intelligence to exist. Otherwise the most rudimentary forms of intelligence even simple algorithm generated computer models of intelligent processes might be expected to be conscious of their existing inside of a personal computer. It is not possible to rule-out electronic or algorithmic consciousness existing, therefore even though consciousness is not expected to exist in a computer model it is still possible that any functioning intelligence system is somehow conscious of their existence. In either case, consciousness is not a requirement for intelligence.

Another strong indication you are dealing with a crank is when they present you "theoretical" "papers" supposedly built on theoretical modelling, information theory, and stuff like that, yet the text is typeset in Microsoft Word...

Gary: said theory that states “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

That is not a theory! I even defined "theory" for you. Wow. Unfrackinteachable.

Intelligent Design is pseudoscience, not a theory. No IDiot including you can reliably distinguish meaningful strings from random sequences.

Second, you demand I explain how "intelligent causes" operate. You certainly can't! You made a series of allegations about "molecular intelligence". We could make up an infinite number of such allegations. We can define "atomic intelligence" and "quark intelligence" and "plant intelligence" and "fluffy cloud intelligence" and so on forever.

By your definition of intelligence, your think your poop is intelligent, and I don't. Why is your belief in intelligent poop science?

Diogenes: That is not a theory! I even defined "theory" for you. Wow. Unfrackinteachable.

I in full said:Please return the goalposts to scientifically explaining how "intelligent cause" works as per the premise of said theory that states “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

The theory itself is 40 something pages in the pdf file I linked to therefore you are essentially correct, the one sentence introduction is the premise for a proposed theory (not the theory that ends up written to explain how intelligent cause works).

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Gary, if "certain" features are best explained by an intelligent cause, there must also be certain features that are not best explained by an intelligent cause, so will you please name at least five certain features of the universe and of living things that are not best explained by an intelligent cause?

but if you have evidence that they choose to stay upstream for another reason then I would be interested in knowing.

Umm, yeah. They "choose" to stay upstream because they die after spawning. Not really much choice then. Unless of course they believe in the Intelligent Salmon Designer and are thereby resurrected into eternal life in the Great Salmon Stream in the Sky.

And as if on cue, Ken Ham is attacking a couple of Christian musicians for going off the (creationist) rez and denying Ham's Floodosophy. Ham insists they're insolent to disagree with YEC because they don't have credentials like the Christian scientists at Asses of Genesis:

Michael Gungor studied jazz guitar at Western Michigan University and the University of North Texas. His wife, Lisa, studied music at Oral Roberts University.2 Neither is a Bible scholar nor scientist.

NEITHER ARE YOU you putz! You were Australia's worst school teacher and now you run a zip line emporium in Kentucky!

And yet, they are writing as though they know more than people who have spent their lives studying the inerrancy of Scripture

They do. Someone who has spent his whole life studying the "inerrancy of Scripture" is as smart as someone who has spent his life studying Bigfoot or the Chupacabra. THEY'RE MYTHICAL. WE ARE ALL SMARTER THAN THE PEOPLE WHO THINK SANTA CLAUS OR INERRANT SCRIPTURES ARE REAL.

This all taps into a equation that does prevail in origin issues.Who has authority to decide these issues and whom should defer to them.forever and a day evolutionists tell creationists SCIENTISTS, SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, SCIENCE , has decided evolution is true. That settles it!so creationists, like me, say its small circles of 'scientists" or others knowledgeable about the subject that creationists only must respect as authority. Respect but take on.In fact many just a few thousands. I'm not sure.Then when creationists of any tribe address these subjects they are told they are not authority and so not to be respected as knowledgeable . Though possibly still contended with.so what is the truth? Can a knowledgeable person on these matters, without the degrees in biology or science or anything, confidently contend on these matters from any side OR NOT??Only degree ed folks need open their mouths!!

surely in a issue of knowledge it only matters if the person has the knowledge to be respected in the fight.It can be anyone. If they show they can't keep up then dismiss them in your heart. Dismissing them with ones words is suspect one side putting down the other sides soldiers. Many creationists didn't get degrees in the their late teens and early twenties but are smarter and more learned then those who did in many cases.i'm sure many sharp evolutionists also didn't get degree's but make a better defence for evolution then others on their side who did get degrees.This is a intellectual subject and simply one must reach a level of intellectual competence in the subject too demand respect. both sides.Its what you know and not whats hanging on your wall.

If it was settled it would be settled. North america does not think its settled and the establishment oppresses creationists in public institutions. if it was settled there would be no fear and passion to censor the small umber of dissidents. this is what the soviets did and lost a empire over.Here we go again.

Robert said: "This is a intellectual subject and simply one must reach a level of intellectual competence in the subject too demand respect. both sides.

You have reached a not uncommonly high level of intellectual incompetence although you rank with the very best in the field, and I know with certainty that you have no factual competence.

And yes Robert, just as there still are people with unsettled business with Loch Ness' Nessie, Bigfoot, Yeti, UFO's and abductions, as well as all other beliefs some people cling to,.yours are just as bizarre as all the others in an universe of laughable stuff.

IMO Dembski shouldn’t have been invited. Not because of his ideas are wrong and have been refuted time and again but because he decried science, academia, and those he wants to treat him as a colleague way too often. Demsbki is just not a man of science.

Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.

Sandwalk

The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Subscribe to Sandwalk

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.